JerryBruck

They're coming for you briansquibb, can you hear the footsteps yet? They're on the scent, their Attitude Detectors dialed up to ISO 125,000! -- hard maybe tell chalk from cheese in all the noise but who cares? It's Olympics, imagine! Drop that lens, raise those sneaky hands, turn slowly to the wall! We'll leave the light on for you.

briansquibb

They're coming for you briansquibb, can you hear the footsteps yet? They're on the scent, their Attitude Detectors dialed up to ISO 125,000! -- hard maybe tell chalk from cheese in all the noise but who cares? It's Olympics, imagine! Drop that lens, raise those sneaky hands, turn slowly to the wall! We'll leave the light on for you.

One other thing to bear in mind, the Guardian have a history of "having an agenda". For example, last year there was a serious accident on the M5 involving over 30 vehicles. Not long after the Guardian used it rather perversely to bang their drum about speed limits and how they should be reduced, even though there was no evidence that speed was a contributing factor in the accident.While I'm not saying there haven't been issues in the past few years, we are only seeing one side of the story here. For all we know, the journalists/photographers could have deliberately been acting furtively to attract attention to themselves and provoke a reaction. Personally, I have a healthy dose of doubt when it comes to anything the media are reporting, I've seen too many cases of distorted facts and deliberately misleading reports that have elements of truth, but are missing the important aspects. It's like photographing a relaxing country scene, to promote peaceful walks, without informing the viewer that there is a busy and noisy motorway bridge above.

Logged

Canon 5D MkIII, 7D, 300mm L IS f/2.8 and a few other L's

briansquibb

One other thing to bear in mind, the Guardian have a history of "having an agenda". For example, last year there was a serious accident on the M5 involving over 30 vehicles. Not long after the Guardian used it rather perversely to bang their drum about speed limits and how they should be reduced, even though there was no evidence that speed was a contributing factor in the accident.While I'm not saying there haven't been issues in the past few years, we are only seeing one side of the story here. For all we know, the journalists/photographers could have deliberately been acting furtively to attract attention to themselves and provoke a reaction. Personally, I have a healthy dose of doubt when it comes to anything the media are reporting, I've seen too many cases of distorted facts and deliberately misleading reports that have elements of truth, but are missing the important aspects. It's like photographing a relaxing country scene, to promote peaceful walks, without informing the viewer that there is a busy and noisy motorway bridge above.